This would be considered a par 3 in pro terms. Still a "demanding" shot, scrambling for three isn't that bad, but a birdie takes some skill.

Any AM that says "wow thats just way too easy...", yeah, you're a dumb dumb. A straight shot demanding at least 300' to get an easy birdie. If that IS too easy for you, the alternate basket is 377 feet. If you're an AM and still think that is too easy, then your internet game is 1200 rated.

This would be considered a par 3 in pro terms. Still a "demanding" shot, scrambling for three isn't that bad, but a birdie takes some skill.

Any AM that says "wow thats just way too easy...", yeah, you're a dumb dumb. A straight shot demanding at least 300' to get an easy birdie. If that IS too easy for you, the alternate basket is 377 feet. If you're an AM and still think that is too easy, then your internet game is 1200 rated.

And if all (or most or even many) par 3s in disc golf were like that, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. However, relying on holes like that for the game to be good rules out most existing parks and many regions of the country and world.

And if all (or most or even many) par 3s in disc golf were like that, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. However, relying on holes like that for the game to be good rules out most existing parks and many regions of the country and world.

This is getting really off-topic, but I question the assumption that the above hole is actually a goal or desirable. I personally would call that hole very poorly-designed. The basic design of it requires a player to hit a ~10ft. gap at what looks to be about 150ft. out.. or an angular accuracy requirement of 1.91 degrees of perfect. In my experience, requiring an angular accuracy of under even 5 degrees at the Gold level leads to a whole lot of randomness of outcome off the tee. In the case of this hole, due to just how heavy the brush looks immediately off the gap, missing the gap is likely (but not guaranteed) to be heavily punished, depending on where you kick to. I don't know if anyone read the John Houck article in the most-recent PDGA mag, but he talked specifically about the importance of "pittsboros" (essentially recovery zones) at key points in a fairway, to allow for a slightly-less-optimal drive to still present a viable (but slightly tougher) recovery shot. In reference to the hole pictured above, imagine two parallel fairways to the main line.. so if you missed the gap and kicked right or left hard, you would still have a tough but fair shot at getting to the basket (tougher than if you'd just hit the gap, of course).

This is getting really off-topic, but I question the assumption that the above hole is actually a goal or desirable. I personally would call that hole very poorly-designed. The basic design of it requires a player to hit a ~10ft. gap at what looks to be about 150ft. out.. or an angular accuracy requirement of 1.91 degrees of perfect. In my experience, requiring an angular accuracy of under even 5 degrees at the Gold level leads to a whole lot of randomness of outcome off the tee. In the case of this hole, due to just how heavy the brush looks immediately off the gap, missing the gap is likely (but not guaranteed) to be heavily punished, depending on where you kick to. I don't know if anyone read the John Houck article in the most-recent PDGA mag, but he talked specifically about the importance of "pittsboros" (essentially recovery zones) at key points in a fairway, to allow for a slightly-less-optimal drive to still present a viable (but slightly tougher) recovery shot. In reference to the hole pictured above, imagine two parallel fairways to the main line.. so if you missed the gap and kicked right or left hard, you would still have a tough but fair shot at getting to the basket (tougher than if you'd just hit the gap, of course).

IMO, this hole is challenging enough to be a pro par 3, vs. a theoretical par 2, but not a "great" hole. Greatness to me comes from having choices to make with creative design elements. This is basically dictating the shot...perfectly straight, low ceiling, 300 ft of carry...the Buzzz hole. Most courses in an area that has trees will have at least one hole like this, and several shots like this. Not knocking this one particularly, nor especially the course itself based on only one hole.

The only choice here is really to go for a bird, or break it down into two easier putter shots and play for par (something I'm betting 99% of pros wouldn't even think about...since many can likely get the D for a putt with a putter off the tee...?) This is just a personal preference in terms of rating a hole. There's a fine balance between having options, and making a hole challenging, between design and what I think of as "over-design."

For me, the more a hole design dictates the exact shot to me, the less creative in some sense the design is. One of my design pet peeves is say, leaving a tree w/in 10 ft of the pad, to one side or the other of the release area, essentially forcing a FH or BH throw. Again, just a personal preference deal.

This is getting really off-topic, but I question the assumption that the above hole is actually a goal or desirable. I personally would call that hole very poorly-designed. The basic design of it requires a player to hit a ~10ft. gap at what looks to be about 150ft. out.. or an angular accuracy requirement of 1.91 degrees of perfect. In my experience, requiring an angular accuracy of under even 5 degrees at the Gold level leads to a whole lot of randomness of outcome off the tee. In the case of this hole, due to just how heavy the brush looks immediately off the gap, missing the gap is likely (but not guaranteed) to be heavily punished, depending on where you kick to. I don't know if anyone read the John Houck article in the most-recent PDGA mag, but he talked specifically about the importance of "pittsboros" (essentially recovery zones) at key points in a fairway, to allow for a slightly-less-optimal drive to still present a viable (but slightly tougher) recovery shot. In reference to the hole pictured above, imagine two parallel fairways to the main line.. so if you missed the gap and kicked right or left hard, you would still have a tough but fair shot at getting to the basket (tougher than if you'd just hit the gap, of course).

It is only slightly off topic, IMO, for reasons that have already been discussed. Anyways, I agree that it is not the ideal design, for exactly the reasons you stated. However, what it has going for it is that it would likely have the appropriate scoring spread for good players relative to par:

A great shot will likely yield a birdie, as it should.

A good shot and a great putt will likely yield a birdie, as it should.

A good shot and a good putt (or approach, as this relates to the discussion on target size) will likely yield a par, as it should.

A bad shot and a great recovery will likely yield a par, as it should.

Anything worse than that will yield a bogey or worse, as it should.

It is clearly not a par 2 or a par 4. The way that it is intended to be played is clear and if you have the skill to throw a straight shot on line, which all players should strive to be able to do, it presents a reasonable test of that skill. I doubt you would see many pro players make worse than a 4 on that hole, even with an unlucky kick on the drive. And if they did, they probably deserved it.

It's one of 18 holes on the course, some wide open, some through massive open wooded lanes, some just like you see. Elevation challenges, plenty of risk/reward. This was an amazing hole to come across.

p.s. about 150 feet down, on the left, there was an open field, if you kicked out to the left you could still save par on an accurate up shot. If you went to the right, fubar and a bogey.

VA had three great courses [that I played], very challenging holes that rewarded accuracy, and some holes that rewarded huge arms. Both of which I have none. Loved Loriella.

However, what it has going for it is that it would likely have the appropriate scoring spread for good players relative to par:

A great shot will likely yield a birdie, as it should.

A good shot and a great putt will likely yield a birdie, as it should.

A good shot and a good putt (or approach, as this relates to the discussion on target size) will likely yield a par, as it should.

A bad shot and a great recovery will likely yield a par, as it should.

Anything worse than that will yield a bogey or worse, as it should.

These categories, while technically 'correct', don't really capture the reality between a 'good' shot and a 'bad' shot. As I tried to say previously, at an angular accuracy requirement of <2 degrees, for a very high percentage of players (even Gold-level ones), hitting a 10ft. gap at 150ft. comes down to some amount of luck. So an 'almost-good' shot might nick one of the two guardian trees, and kick hard left. Or an 'almost-good' shot might kick right into the fairway. A 'slightly-less-than-almost-good' shot might nail one of the guardian trees squarely, and drop back directly onto the fairway. Or it might knock the disc back just far enough off the fairway to have zero possibility of forward play. In short, there's still a huge variation in the possible outcomes for the hole simply due to the limitations of how controllable (ratio of skill vs luck) this particular shot is.

The 'bad' shot, by comparison, doesn't even get to the 10ft. guardian tree gap.

As another method of looking at this hole (instead of scoring spread) consider correlation coefficient. Take the rating (or more roughly skill) of the player throwing, and compare that with their (averaged across many rounds) score for playing the hole. How closely-associated is their skill with their score? My argument here is that ultimately requiring a <2 degree angular accuracy shot is going to produce a lower correlation coefficient than could be accomplished by (theoretical) re-design for this hole.

These categories, while technically 'correct', don't really capture the reality between a 'good' shot and a 'bad' shot. As I tried to say previously, at an angular accuracy requirement of <2 degrees, for a very high percentage of players (even Gold-level ones), hitting a 10ft. gap at 150ft. comes down to some amount of luck. So an 'almost-good' shot might nick one of the two guardian trees, and kick hard left. Or an 'almost-good' shot might kick right into the fairway. A 'slightly-less-than-almost-good' shot might nail one of the guardian trees squarely, and drop back directly onto the fairway. Or it might knock the disc back just far enough off the fairway to have zero possibility of forward play. In short, there's still a huge variation in the possible outcomes for the hole simply due to the limitations of how controllable (ratio of skill vs luck) this particular shot is.

The 'bad' shot, by comparison, doesn't even get to the 10ft. guardian tree gap.

As another method of looking at this hole (instead of scoring spread) consider correlation coefficient. Take the rating (or more roughly skill) of the player throwing, and compare that with their (averaged across many rounds) score for playing the hole. How closely-associated is their skill with their score? My argument here is that ultimately requiring a <2 degree angular accuracy shot is going to produce a lower correlation coefficient than could be accomplished by (theoretical) re-design for this hole.

I personally think a hole like this would correlate very well in scores vs rating. Your point is a good one, though, which brings me back to my point that making holes with more obstacles is not necessarily sufficient as a solution. If the gap were wider, that hole would be a par2, and a boring hole. If there were more recovery zones, it is still dumb luck whether you end up in one for an "almost good" shot, though it may help some. However, you would destroy the scoring spread because essentially no good players would ever make a bogey. However, if you widen the gap but make putting harder, you still might get a putt for an "almost good" shot, but would have a more difficult putt to make than for a good or great shot.

I personally think a hole like this would correlate very well in scores vs rating. Your point is a good one, though, which brings me back to my point that making holes with more obstacles is not necessarily sufficient as a solution. If the gap were wider, that hole would be a par2, and a boring hole. If there were more recovery zones, it is still dumb luck whether you end up in one for an "almost good" shot, though it may help some. However, you would destroy the scoring spread because essentially no good players would ever make a bogey. However, if you widen the gap but make putting harder, you still might get a putt for an "almost good" shot, but would have a more difficult putt to make than for a good or great shot.

Well, the other option to work with is the length.. if a wider gap is producing a score average pushing into the par 2 category, maybe the solution is the 377ft. position (and the wider gap)? I think there are definitely cases where length gets added to a hole simply to mitigate the fact that the hole lacks the necessary features to spread out scores, but (some) length is crucial for Gold-level play, where it can be safely assumed that players will hit 400ft. accurate placement shots all day.